Abstract

The present cross sectional study was carried out to determine the prevalence and identify the species of ectoparasites infesting domestic turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) in Jere area. The study was conducted from the month of April to October, 2016 of the study period. Out of the total of 300 domesticated turkeys examined for the presence or absence of ectoparasites, 185 (61.67%) were found to be infested with one or more ectoparasites. The prevalence rate according to the study locations varies as Galtimari Ward (15.0%), Mairi emirate (12.67%), Fori ward (12.33%), University Staff Quarters (11.0%) and Mairi Kuwait (10.67%) of Jere. Among the Four different types of ectoparasites encountered, Lice (31.67%) were found to be the most prevalent followed by the Flea (15.33%) and Mites (12.0%) while the Ticks (2.67%) are the least prevalent. However, among the eight (8) different species of ectoparasites found on the infested turkeys; the most prevalent species of ectoparasites found was Lipeurus tropicalis (17.67%), followed by Echidnophaga gallinacean (15.33%), Menacanthus stramineus (8.33%), Dermanyssus gallinae (7.0%), Chelopistes meleagridis (5.67%), Epidermoptes bilobatus (3.0%), Argas persicus (2.67%) and Cnemidocoptes mutans (2.0%) in a descending order of prevalence rate. There was mixed infestation with two or more species of ectoparasites in some infected turkeys. Ectoparasites infestation was found to be significantly higher in Adult (44.0%) than in the young (17.67%) turkeys (P = 0.0148; RR = 1.202). Ectoparasites infestation was also found to be higher in the female (33.0%) than in the male (28.67%) turkeys, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.3102; RR = 0.9240). Ectoparasites infestation was found to be significantly higher in turkeys reared under the extensive (50.0%) compared to those reared under the intensive (11.67%) management systems (P < 0.0001; RR = 1.622). This is the first survey to determine the prevalence and identify the species of ectoparasites among domestic turkeys in Jere area of Borno State, Nigeria. The occurrence of ectoparasites in domestic turkeys indicated the existence of diverse ectoparasites fauna in the present study area which is associated with inadequate management system such as poor hygienic rearing system, poor husbandry and lack of strategic ectoparasites control practices.

Keywords: Prevalence, Ectoparasites, Domesticated, Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo), Jere area, Borno State, Nigeria.

Received: 8 February 2019 / Revised: 18 March 2019 / Accepted: 22 May 2019/ Published: 2 July 2019

Contribution/ Originality

This present study has contributed to the existing literature of the occurrence of ectoparasites in poultry species in Nigeria. This study also represents one of very few studies which have investigated the prevalence of ectoparasites in domesticated turkeys in Nigeria. However, this is the first survey to determine the prevalence and identify the species of ectoparasites among domestic turkeys in Jere area of Borno State, Nigeria.

1. INTRODUCTION

Poultry are domesticated avian species (chickens, guinea fowls, ducks, pigeons, turkeys and quails) reared for the purpose of high quality animal protein (meat and eggs) [1, 2] as well as provision of petty cash (derived from the sales of live birds and eggs), job creation, poverty alleviation, as hobby and generally plays a vital role in the national economy as a revenue provider [3]. Village poultry production systems which involves either raising indigenous breed of poultry extensively (free range scavenging) or semi-intensively (partially restricted semi-scavenging) constitutes one of the major activities of rural farmers and low income holders in developing countries including Nigeria [4-6]. The turkeys are among the domesticated poultry species usually reared under both the extensive and semi-intensive management systems in most parts of the developing countries of Africa including Nigeria [7-9].

A turkey is a large bird in the genus Meleagris and the domestic turkey is descendant of Meleagris gallopavo, commonly known as the “wild turkey” which is native to the forests of North America [10]. Turkey rearing is not really very popular among Nigerian poultry farmers, but it is considered very significant next to other domesticated poultry species such as chicken, duck, guinea fowl, pigeon and quail in contributing to the national economy, nutritional status and food security of the increasing population of the country [10]. They are usually reared for meat and its meat is the leanest among other domestic avian species [11]. In Nigeria, the meats of turkey are in many instances demanded by high ranked and rich individuals especially those with health challenged aliments [12]. Diseases have been reported as one of the major constraint toward successful turkey production in developing countries including Nigeria, among which the effect of parasitism is often severe [9, 10, 13, 14].

Although, extensive rearing of turkeys usually requires low investment in facilities and equipment, and it is affordable and sustainable both for backyard turkey production investments from economic point of view [15]. However, it may expose the birds to several disease pathogens including ectoparasites since there is inappropriate housing and lack of appreciable pest control efforts [3, 16]. Avian ectoparasites can be broadly divided into mites, lice, ticks, fleas, and flies [17-19]. These parasites may constitute clinical problems; transmit a number of infectious diseases and can also act as transport/intermediate hosts of other parasites [20, 21]. They are considered among the basic causes of growth retardation and economic loss of the infested birds [22, 23]. They can also cause irritation, discomfort, tissue damage, blood loss, toxicosis, allergies and dermatitis, which in turn affect the quality and quantity of meat and egg production [13, 24]. The factors that influence the epidemiology of ectoparasitism includes: inadequacy in the management practice and husbandry system, poor sanitation, favorable climate and geo-ecological conditions. The present study was aimed to determine the prevalence rates of ectoparasites in domesticated turkeys in Jere area, Borno State, Nigeria.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Study Area

The present study is conducted in Jere area of Borno State, North eastern Nigeria. Its headquarters are in the town of Khaddamari. It has an area of 868 km² and a population of 211,204 at the 2006 Nigeria national census. The most of population in Jere Town are Arabic tribes Baggara. The postal code of the area is 600. It is one of the Sixteen Local Government Areas that constitute the Borno Emirate, a traditional state located in Borno State, Nigeria [25].

2.2. Sampling Period

This study was conducted on domesticated turkey reared on extensive and intensive management systems in and around Jere area, Borno State, Nigeria from the month of April to October, 2016 which tallies with the wet and dry seasons of the sampling period.

2.3. Sample Size Estimation

The desired sample size for the study was calculated using the equation described by Thrusfield [26] since the exact prevalence of ectoparasites domestic turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) in the study area was not known; to maximize the sample size it was assumed that the expected prevalence was 50%, absolute precision was 5% and the confidence interval level was set to be 95% as shown below,

Where, n= the required sample size, p = expected prevalence, q = 1 – p; and l= absolute precision, that is the largest acceptable differences between the true and the estimated prevalence.
As a result, 300 samples were collected for the study.

2.4. Sampling Procedure

A total of 300 domesticated turkeys of both sexes and different age groups were randomly selected from the study locations. The age groups of sampled turkeys were categorically considered into two: “Young and Adults” for reasons of convenient classification of the birds. Each turkey was examined gently, carefully and thoroughly with emphasis to the head, combs, eyelids, wattles, neck, feathers, breast, back, wings, shafts, legs.

2.5. Entomological Examinations

Each turkey was manually restrained to prevent unnecessary struggle or stress and then using hand brush, the plumage was gently brushed onto a white sheet of paper for the collection of ectoparasites. The feathers of the head, neck, wings, body, legs and cloaca were gently but quickly raised and thoroughly examined with a hand lens for ectoparasites. Attached ectoparasites such as lice and ticks, which could not be removed by brushing, were gently dislodged with a pair of thumb forceps and their sites noted. However, part of any turkey suspected to be infested by mite was gently scraped using a scalpel blade dipped in acetic glycerin. All collected samples were preserved in a bijou sample bottles containing 70% ethanol with 5% glycerin, labeled accordingly and transported to the Department of Veterinary Parasitology and Entomology research laboratory, University of Maiduguri for identification. All types of ectoparasites and scrapings collected were categorized. Permanent preparations were made on well labeled slides and then the ectoparasites were identified on the basis of their morphological characters as described by Soulsby [27]; Arends [20] and Walker [28].

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Data generated were analyzed with SPSS (version 10) Statistical Package. Chi-square was used to test for significant differences between age group, sex and management systems. Differences were considered significant at P < 0.05.

3. RESULTS

Out of the total of 300 domesticated turkeys examined 185 were found to be infested by different species of ectoparasites with an overall prevalent rate of 61.67%. However, five different study locations were visited for ectoparasites and other data collections from turkeys and their owners, the results revealed varying prevalence rates in each location as follows in descending order: Galtimari Ward (15.0%), Mairi emirate (12.67%), Fori ward (12.33%), University Staff Quarters (11.0%) and Mairi Kuwait (10.67%) as shown in Table 1.

Among the four type of ectoparasites encountered, Lice (31.67%) were the most prevalent followed by the Flea (15.33%) and Mites (12.0%) while the Ticks (2.67%) are the least prevalent as shown in Table 2.

The result of the present study found eight (8) different species of ectoparasites on the infested turkeys; the most prevalent species of ectoparasites found was Lipeurus tropicalis (17.67%), followed by Echidnophaga gallinacean (15.33%), Menacanthus stramineus (8.33%), Dermanyssus gallinae (7.0%), Chelopistes meleagridis (5.67%), Epidermoptes bilobatus (3.0%), Argas persicus (2.67%) and Cnemidocoptes mutans (2.0%) in a descending order of prevalence rate Table 3. There was mixed infestation with two or more species of ectoparasites.

Ectoparasites infestation was found to be significantly higher in Adult (44.0%) than young (17.67%) turkeys (P = 0.0148; RR = 1.202). However, infestation was found to be higher in the female (33.0%) than male (28.67%) turkeys, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.3102; RR = 0.9240). Ectoparasites infestation was found to be significantly higher in turkeys reared under extensive (50.0%) compared to those reared under the intensive (11.67%) management systems (P < 0.0001; RR = 1.622) as shown in Table 4.

Table-1. Overall Prevalence of ectoparasites in domesticated Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) in Jere area, Borno State, Nigeria.

Sampling locations	Number of Turkeys Examined (N = 300)	Number of Turkeys Infested (%)	Prevalence (%)
Mairi Emirate	55	38 (69.09)	12.67
Mairi Kuwait	50	32 (64.0)	10.67
Galtimari Ward	81	45 (55.56)	15.0
Fori Ward	58	37 (63.79)	12.33
University Staff Quarters	56	33 (58.93)	11.0
Total	300	185 (61.67)	61.67

Table-2. Ectoparasitic infestation in domesticated Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) in Jere area, Borno State, Nigeria.

Ectoparasites	Number of Turkeys infested (N=300)	Prevalence rate (%)
Lice	95	31.67
Flea	46	15.33
Mites	36	12.0
Ticks	8	2.67
Total	185	61.67

Key: N = Total number of turkeys physically examined during the study period.

Table-3. Species Ectoparasitic infestation in domesticated Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) in Jere area, Borno State, Nigeria.

Ectoparasites	Species	No. of Turkeys infested (N = 300)	Prevalence (%)
Lice	Lipeurus tropicalis	53	17.67
	Menacanthus stramineus	25	8.33
	Chelopistes meleagridis	17	5.67
Flea	Echidnophaga gallinacean	46	15.33
Mites	Cnemidocoptes mutans	6	2.0
	Dermanyssus gallinae	21	7.0
	Epidermoptes bilobatus	9	3.0
Ticks	Argas persicus	8	2.67

Table-4. Risk factors associated with ectoparasites infestation in domesticated Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) in Jere area, Borno State, Nigeria.

Parameters	Risk factors	No. of Turkeys examined (N = 300)	No. of Turkeys infested (%)	Prevalence (%)	95% CI	P-value	RR
					LL – UL
Age	Young	120	53 (44.17)	17.67	0.6198 – 0.7610	0.0148*	1.202
	Adult	180	132 (73.33)	44.0	0.5206 – 0.6323
Sex	Females	145	99 (68.28)	33.0	0.5301 – 0.6560	0.3102	0.9240
	Males	155	86 (55.48)	28.67	0.5795 – 0.7036
Management	Intensive	150	35 (23.33)	11.67	0.7471 – 0.8646	< 0.0001*	1.622
	Extensive	150	150 (100)	50.0	0.4420 – 0.5580

Key: CI= Confidence interval; LL= Lower limit; UL= Upper limit; RR= Relative risk
*Statistical significance.

4. DISCUSSION

This is the first reported prevalence of avian ectoparasites in domesticated turkeys in the study area. The present study revealed an overall prevalence rate of 61.67% of avian ectoparasites among domesticated turkeys examined. This prevalence rate of ectoparasites in domestic turkeys in this present study was considerably higher, which indicates that ectoparasites infestation is a common problem among turkeys in the study area. The prevalence rate was found to vary amongst the different study locations, the highest prevalence rate was recorded in Galtimari area (15.0%) compared to12.67% and 12.33% from Mairi Emirate and Fori ward respectively while prevalence rate was least recorded in the University staff quarters (11.0%) and Mairi Kuwait (10.67%). The difference might be associated with the number of turkeys examined and the level of sanitation in each location where the turkeys were sampled. These factors were suggested to play significant role in the rate of ectoparasites infestations in poultry [29]. The high prevalence of ectoparasites in the present study may be connected to the free range, poor management and husbandry methods in the turkey production system; overcrowding in unhygienic environment and poor sanitation around turkey farmers’ households as well as rearing turkey with other poultry species Figure 1 and Figure 2. The finding of the present study is comparable to 62.25% reported by Salifou, et al. [30] but lower than 94.0% reported by Iposu, et al. [10] and higher than 12.50%, 36.0% and 22.0% reported by Lane, et al. [31]; Hadi and Hind [32] and Razmi, et al. [33] respectively. The difference in the prevalence rates recorded in the present study and other previous similar studies elsewhere might be attributed to factors such as the variation in the methods of study, sample size, season of sample collection, turkey husbandry and management system, breed of turkey, climatic and seasonal variation in prevalence rates, agro-ecological factors and implemented methods of the ectoparasites control and prevention [34]. It was observed that most of the turkeys sampled from the five locations in the present study were reared under the extensive/scavenging and semi-intensive systems, where the turkeys are allowed to fully or partially roam around the compound, on rubbish dumps, mingling with other village poultry species like chickens Figure 3 and roost together in the same cage at night. This type of practice might allow cross-infestation of ectoparasites among different poultry species. This finding buttresses those of Bala, et al. [29] who suggested that ectoparasites can easily migrate from one bird host to another during roosting especially where they are overcrowded. Scavenging nature of the turkeys and mingling with other village poultry species have been reported to possibly expose them to ectoparasites infestations that are origin of other poultry species or wild birds [35]. This could be attributed to the reason why most of the common chicken ectoparasites were also abundantly found on the ectoparasites infested turkeys in the present study.

The affected turkeys in the present study were found to be infested with ectoparasites from four different groups namely; lice, mites, flea and tick. This finding is consistent with previous report of Iposu, et al. [10] and Rezaei, et al. [36] who have also reported these groups of ectoparasites from domesticated turkeys from Ogun State and Iran respectively, Mohammad, et al. [37] have reported only lice and mites in domestic turkeys from Malaysia. However, the prevalence rate of the ectoparasites in the present study revealed that lice (31.67%) was the most prevalent followed by flea (15.33%) and mite (12.0%) while the prevalence of tick (2.67%) was considered the least prevalent. This finding agrees with Mohammad, et al. [37] who have also reported that lice are the most prevalent ectoparasites in turkeys, but the findings of the present study did not tally with those of Iposu, et al. [10] who have reported mites (40.7%) and Rezaei, et al. [36] who reported ticks (24.66%) as the most prevalent ectoparasites in turkeys. Our study also buttresses results from other several similar researches that have reported lice as the most prevalent ectoparasites fauna in domesticated poultry species [29, 38-41]. The variations in the prevalence rates in various studies might be associated with factors which included difference in the geographical area of study, season of study, climatic factors, sample sizes and management system of birds from the respective study areas.

The results of the present study found eight (8) different species of ectoparasites on the infested turkeys; of which the most prevalent species of ectoparasites found was Lipeurus tropicalis (17.67%), followed by Echidnophaga gallinacean (15.33%), Menacanthus stramineus (8.33%), Dermanyssus gallinae (7.0%), Chelopistes meleagridis (5.67%), Epidermoptes bilobatus (3.0%), Argas persicus (2.67%) and Cnemidocoptes mutans (2.0%). This finding buttress the report of Fabiyi, et al. [42]; Rezaei, et al. [36] and Ebrahimi, et al. [43] who have also reported these species of ectoparasites to infest turkeys and other domestic poultry species in their various researches.

The species of lice found to be most prevalent in the present study was Lipeurus tropicalis at a prevalence rateof 17.67%. This finding is lower than 23.5%, 40.0 % and 78.0% reported by Iposu, et al. [10]; Mohammad, et al. [37] and Fabiyi, et al. [42] in turkeys respectively. Lipeurus tropicalis is one of the most pathogenic species of poultry lice as it causes severe anemia by feeding on the host blood. Its bite results in inflammation of the skin and the extensive scab formation and eventually feathers loss [44]. Other species of lice found were Menacanthus stramineus and Chelopistes meleagridis at prevalence rates of 8.33% and 5.67% respectively. This finding is lower than Menacanthus stramineus (48.0%) and Chelopistes meleagridis (33.0%) reported by Fabiyi, et al. [42].Our prevalence rate of Menacanthus stramineus is also lower than 12.5%, 62.25% and 2.0% reported by Lane, et al. [31]; Salifou, et al. [30] and Hadi and Hind [32] respectively but higher than 8.0% reported by Rezaei, et al. [36] in turkeys from other parts of the world. Lipeurus tropicalis and Menacanthus stramineus are common louse found on most village poultry species especially the chickens and guinea fowls while Chelopistes meleagridis is the turkey louse found on turkeys as its original host [42, 45, 46]. The finding of common chickens louse on turkeys in the present study unveiled the common practice of village poultry farmers in the study area who are fond of rearing different species of poultry together in a mixed poultry farming. This suggested the chances of the parasites migrating from their natural host to infest the turkeys especially during roosting together at night or overcrowding situations as previously reported by Bala, et al. [29]. The occurrence of the turkey louse (Chelopistes meleagridis) on turkeys in the present study unveiled the poor management system and inadequate sanitation involved in turkey rearing in the current study area.

The present study reveals Echidnophaga gallinacean as the only flea that infest turkeys in the study area with a prevalence rate of 15.33%. This finding is lower than 35.0% reported by Fabiyi, et al. [42] but higher than 6.0% reported by Rezaei, et al. [36]. The difference in the prevalence rate of fleas from the various studies might be attributed to variation in the husbandry and management system, poor hygiene and sanitation, climatic conditions, humidity, season of study and other agro ecology influencing the distribution and proliferation of fleas.

Dermanyssus gallinae in the present study was the most prevalent mite species with an overall prevalence of 7.0%. This finding is lower than 12.66 % reported by Rezaei, et al. [36]. The prevalence rate of Dermanyssus gallinae found in the present study is also lower than 100 % reported by Cencek [47] 39.3 and 43.45 % in central and northeastern Iran by Razmi, et al. [33] and Yakhchali, et al. [48] respectively. These variations in the prevalence of Dermanyssus gallinae in the various researches might be associated with variation in ecological and geographical factors such temperature and humidity as well as season of sampling, endemic situation and inadequate husbandry and management system [21, 48]. Other species of mite found in the present study are Epidermoptes bilobatus and Cnemidocoptes mutans at prevalence rates of 3.0% and 2.0% respectively. This finding is lower than Epidermoptes bilobatus (20.0%) and Cnemidocoptes mutans (10.0%) reported by Fabiyi, et al. [42] and Cnemidocoptes mutans (6.0%) reported by Rezaei, et al. [36].

Argas persicus was found on infested turkeys as the only identified tick species with an overall prevalence rate of 2.67%. This finding is comparable to 2.0% reported by Hadi and Hind [32] from Iraq but lower than 24.66% and 50.0% reported by Rezaei, et al. [36] and Fabiyi, et al. [42] respectively. It is usually difficult to report the actual prevalence rates of A. persicus among infested birds because the parasite usually visits the host briefly at night for blood meal. Ticks have been reported to play significant role in the transmission of some bacterial, rickettsial, viral parasitic and spirochaetal diseases in poultry [49].

Ectoparasites infested turkeys in the present study were found to harbored one or mixed ectoparasites species. The mixed infestation of ectoparasites in turkeys as found in this study corroborate with similar findings in other village poultry species like the chickens [16, 36, 42]. The occurrence of mixed infestation of ectoparasites in domesticated poultry species might be attributed to the poor husbandry and management systems, mixed rearing of different poultry species in the same house, agro-ecology and climatic factors as well as inadequate ectoparasites control measures.

Considering age as one of the hypothesized risk factors associated with ectoparasites infestation in domestic turkeys. The present study revealed significantly high prevalence rate of ectoparasites in adult (44.0%) compared to the young (17.67%) turkeys. Several studies related to the ectoparasites infestations in domesticated poultry have revealed higher prevalence rates in adults birds compared to the young ones [41, 50-52]. In most cases, the reasons have been associated with the fact that adult birds are usually allowed to scavenge through a longer distance areas searching for food and mating mates as well as mingling with other poultry species than the younger birds. However, some researchers have reported the high prevalence rates of ectoparasites in younger birds than in adults [16, 53].

In the present study, the female (33.0%) turkeys were more infested than the male (28.67%) ones, although the difference was not significant. This non-significant variation between the sexes in ectoparasites infestation suggested both sexes of turkeys share equal chance of getting ectoparasites infestation especially where reared in the same pen, allowed to mate with each other, exposed to the same species of ectoparasites fauna and where there is overcrowding, inadequate husbandry system and poor sanitation. Comparatively, several studies have reported high ectoparasites infestation in female compared to the male domesticated poultry species [29, 41, 50-52]. Our finding buttress the reports from other studies conducted by Mohammad, et al. [37]; Sabrina [54]; Banda [34]; Mekuria and Gezahegn [55] and Ekpo, et al. [18] who have also reported that ectoparasites infestation is similar between male and female domesticated poultry species including turkeys. However, the finding of the present study is inconsistent with those of Hadi and Hind [32] who reported significantly high ectoparasites infestation in male turkey compared to the female ones. However, reports from similar researches have excluded the impact of sex to ectoparasites infection in village poultry species [56, 57]. Both sexes are basically reared together without discriminations. Moreover, the high prevalence of ectoparasites in the female turkeys might as well be associated with the reduced distance roaming and stationary in the nest of female birds during incubation of eggs which allows the female turkeys to become more prone to ectoparasites infestations than the males. Although, higher ectoparasites infestation in male than female domestic birds with statistical significance difference have been reported [16, 58, 59].

The present study found that turkeys reared under the extensive management systems (50.0%) are statistical significantly more infested with ectoparasites than those reared under the intensive management system (11.67%). This might be connected to better measures and practices related to good husbandry system, ectoparasites control measures, proper sanitation and feeding employed in intensive compared to extensive system. The high prevalence rate of ectoparasites fauna recorded in extensive management system in the present study could be associated to the majority free-range rearing system of the turkeys practiced in the study area, which might exposes the turkeys to poor hygienic environments thus, enabling them to come in contact with a wide range of ectoparasites. This finding is consistent with reports of Mungube, et al. [58]; Mekuria and Gezahegn [55]; Malann, et al. [51] and Kebede, et al. [41] who have also reported that the free-range scavenging system practiced in rearing the village poultry species in most developing countries provides a more sustainable environment for the parasites coupled with lack of inadequate control measures towards these parasites. Some of the turkeys reared intensively were also found to harbor ectoparasites in the present study, this signifies that infestation by ectoparasites may occur in both management systems where the ectoparasites control measures are inadequate.

Figure-1. Domestic turkeys scavenging on rubbish dump.

Figure-2. Overcrowded intensively reared turkeys in a pen.

Figure-3. Turkey mingling with other domesticated poultry species.

5. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, eight species of ectoparasites were identified infesting turkeys in the present study, with the parasites more in the adults, females and extensively reared turkeys compared to the young, males and intensively managed turkeys. Most of the ectoparasites found in this current study have been reported elsewhere to also infest turkeys and other village poultry species. This indicated the existence of diverse ectoparasites fauna in the study area which is associated with extensive management system, inadequate sanitation, poor husbandry and lack of strategic ectoparasites control practices.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

To improve turkey production in the study area, it is therefore recommended that poultry farmers should be educated through institutions and public awareness campaign on the economic importance of ectoparasites infestation in turkeys and also to be trained on how to carry out strategic ectoparasites control measures in their poultry flock. The role of Veterinarians in the study area is very important in assisting turkey farmers in using the correct control measures. Therefore, further studies are required to elucidate the economic significance and impacts of multiple ectoparasites infestations on turkeys reared in the current study area.

Funding: This study received no specific financial support.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Contributors/Acknowledgement: The authors wish to thank all the technical staff of the Veterinary Entomology and Parasitology Research Laboratory, Department of Veterinary Entomology and Parasitology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Maiduguri for their technical assistance throughout the course of this research.

REFERENCES

[1] M. H. Radfar, J. Khedri, K. Adinehbeigi, R. Nabavi, and K. Rahmani, "Prevalence of parasites and associated risk factors in domestic pigeons (Columba livia domestica) and free-range backyard chickens of Sistan region, East of Iran," Journal of Parasitic Diseases, vol. 36, pp. 220-225, 2012. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12639-012-0112-5.

[2] A. Getu, "Review on Ethiopian poultry origin, domestication, classification and characterization of its production systems," Middle East Journal of Scientific Research, vol. 22, pp. 1025-1032, 2014.

[3] P. A. Nnadi and S. O. George, "A cross-sectional survey on parasites of chickens in selected villages in the subhumid Zones of South- Eastern Nigeria," Journal of Parasitology Research, Article ID 141824, pp. 1 – 6, 2010. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/141824.

[4] F. Muchadeyi, S. Sibanda, N. Kusina, J. Kusina, and S. Makuza, "The village chicken production system in Rushinga District of Zimbabwe," Livestock Research for Rural Development, vol. 16, p. 2004, 2004.

[5] J. W. Copland and R. G. Alders, "The Australian village poultry development programme in Asia and Africa," World's Poultry Science Journal, vol. 61, pp. 31-38, 2005. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1079/wps200439.

[6] S. Mack, D. Hoffmann, and J. Otte, "The contribution of poultry to rural development," World's Poultry Science Journal, vol. 61, pp. 7-14, 2005. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1079/wps200436.

[7] D. F. Adene and A. E. Oguntade, The structure and importance of the commercial and village based poultry industry in Nigeria. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization, 2006.

[8] G. Ngu, I. Butswat, G. Mah, and H. Ngantu, "Characterization of small-scale backyard turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) production system in Bauchi State-Nigeria and its role in poverty alleviation," Age (years), vol. 46, pp. 84-4, 2014.

[9] J. Dauda, J. Lawal, A. Bello, M. Mustapha, J. Ndahi, and A. Biu, "Survey on prevalence of gastrointestinal nematodes and associated risk factors in domestic turkeys (Meleagris Gallopavo) slaughtered in poultry markets in Bukuru–Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria," International Journal of Agriculture Innovations and Research, vol. 4, pp. 27-36, 2016.

[10] S. O. Iposu, N. Okwelum, R. O. Sanni, K. Sanwo, and B. O. Oduguwa, "Prevalence of mites and fleas as primary Turkey Ectoparasites in Odeda Local Government Area of Ogun State, Nigeria," Global Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Health Sciences, vol. 3, pp. 154 – 157, 2013.

[11] A. O. Oso, A. O. Fafiolu, R. A. Sobayo, A. V. Jegede, P. E. Dele, K. O. Alaka, A. O. Oni, and A. Y. Amosun, "A survey of backyard indigenous and exotic Turkey production in Abeokuta Metropolis," in Proceedings on the 13th Annual Conference of the ASAN. Repositioning Animal Agriculture for the Realization of National Vision 2020, 2008, pp. 709 – 710.

[12] N. Udoh, S. Luka, and P. Audu, "Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites of domestic Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) Linnaeus,(1758) slaughtered in Kaduna Metropolis, Kaduna State, Nigeria," Journal of Natural Sciences Research, vol. 4, pp. 105-109, 2014.

[13] H. S. Abbas, N. K. Muhammed, I. Zafar, and S. S. Muhammed, "Tick infestation in poultry," International Journal of Agricultural Biology, vol. 1, pp. 162–165, 2004.

[14] M. N. Opara, D. K. Osowa, and J. A. Maxwell, "Blood and gastrointestinal parasites of chickens and Turkeys reared in the tropical Rainforest Zone of Southeastern Nigeria," Open Journal of Veterinary Medicine, vol. 4, pp. 308-313, 2014. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4236/ojvm.2014.412037.

[15] A. Yakubu, H. Abimiku, I. Musa-Azara, K. Idahor, and O. Akinsola, "Assessment of flock structure, preference in selection and traits of economic importance for domestic Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) genetic resources in Nasarawa State, Nigeria," Livestock Research for Rural Development, vol. 25, 2013.

[16] T. Firaol, A. Dagmawit, G. Askale, S. Solomon, D. Morka, and T. Waktole, "Prevalence of ectoparasite infestation in chicken in and around Ambo Town, Ethiopia," Journal of Veterinary Science and Technology, vol. 5, pp. 1 – 5, 2014. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7579.1000189.

[17] E. U. Edosomwan and E. Amadasun, "Ectoparasite of some birds species in Ogba Zoo in Benin City, South Western Nigeria," Bioscience Biotechnology Research Communications, vol. 20, pp. 231–235, 2008.

[18] U. F. Ekpo, A. A. Ogbooye, A. S. Oluwole, and M. Takeet, "A preliminary survey on the parasites of Free range chicken in Abeokuta, Ogun State, Nigeria," Journal of Natural Sciences, Engineering and Technology, vol. 9, pp. 123 – 130, 2010.

[19] M. Ebrahimi, A. Ahmadi, and H. Mohammadpour, "Survey on infestation to ectoparasites in native poultry of Najaf-Abad," Journal of Food Microbiology, vol. 4, pp. 17–20, 2013.

[20] J. J. Arends, External parasites and poultry pests. In: Diseases of poultry. Edited by Calnek WB, John H, Beard WC, McDougald LR, Saif YM, 11th ed. Ames, Iowa: State Press, Blackwell Publishing Company, 2003.

[21] J. Chirico, H. Eriksson, O. Fossum, and D. Jansson, "The poultry red mite, dermanyssus gallinae, a potential vector of Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae causing erysipelas in hens," Medical and Veterinary Entomology, vol. 17, pp. 232-234, 2003. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2915.2003.00428.x.

[22] R. Wall and D. Shearer, Veterinary entomology: Arthropod ectoparasites of veterinary importance. Netherlands: Springer, 2012.

[23] O. A. E. Sparagano, D. R. George, D. W. J. Harrington, and A. Giangaspero, "Significance and control of the poultry red mite, Dermanyssus gallinae," Annual Review of Entomology, vol. 59, pp. 447-466, 2014. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-011613-162101.

[24] S. A. Bhat, M. Y. Wani, J. K. Khojuria, R. Katoch, and K. Dhama, "A rare report of ectoparasites in backyard poultry in Jammu Region: Prevalence study and economic importance," Asian Journal of Animal Veterinary Advances, vol. 9, pp. 727 – 731, 2014. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3923/ajava.2014.727.731.

[25] Anonymous, Nigeria: A people united, a future assured. 2, State Surveys (Millennium Edn). Abuja, Nigeria: Federal Ministry of Information, 2000.

[26] M. Thrusfield, Veterinary epidemiology, 2nd ed. University of Edinburgh, Blackwell Sci, 2005.

[27] E. J. L. Soulsby, Helminths, arthropods and protozoa of domesticated animals, 7th ed. London: Bailliere Tindall, 1982.

[28] Walker, "Tick of domestic animals in Africa: A guide to identification of species," Biosciences Report, Scotland, U.K: Edinburg, Eh 105QR2003.

[29] A. Y. Bala, S. A. Anka, A. Waziri, and H. Shehu, "Preliminary survey of ectoparasites in four areas of Sokoto Metropolis," Nigerian Journal of Basic and Applied Science, vol. 19, pp. 173 – 180, 2011.

[30] S. Salifou, A. Nattay, A. M. Odjo, and L. J. Pangui, "Arthropods ecto parasites dudindo (Meleagris Gallopavo) in westendenburg. Livestock and elevation review," Veterinary Medicine of Tropical Countries, vol. 61, pp. 185 – 189, 2008.

[31] R. S. Lane, T. F. Kucera, R. H. Barrett, J. Mun, C. Wu, and V. S. Smith, "Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) as a host of ixodid ticks, lice and Lyme disease spirochetes (Borrelia spp.) in California state parks," Journal of Wild Life Diseases, vol. 42, pp. 759 – 771, 2006. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-42.4.759.

[32] M. H. A. Hadi and A. A. Hind, "Ectoparasites of domestic Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) in Al-Diwaniya City/Iraq," International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, vol. 4, pp. 669 – 677, 2015.

[33] G. R. Razmi, M. Moaveni, and G. A. Kalidari, "Epidemiological study of Dermanyssus gallinae infestation in egg laying flocks of Mashhad area, Iran," presented at the 4th National Symposium of Poultry Health and dDseases, Iran, 2008.

[34] Z. Banda, "Ectoparasites of indigenous Malawi chickens," Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, vol. 5, pp. 1454-1460, 2011.

[35] S. M. Adelusi, C. G. Vajime, E. A. Omudu, R. O. Okpotu, and F. O. Onazi, "Avian ectoparasitism in Makurdi, Nigeria: Do wild birds serve as reservoir for domestic birds?," Nigerian Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences, vol. 6, pp. 11–15, 2014.

[36] F. Rezaei, M. Hashemnia, A. Chalechale, S. Seidi, and M. Gholizadeh, "Prevalence of ectoparasites in free-range backyard chickens, domestic pigeons (Columba livia domestica) and turkeys of Kermanshah province, West of Iran," Journal of Parasitic Diseases, vol. 40, pp. 448-453, 2016. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12639-014-0524-5.

[37] Z. Z. Mohammad, A. H. Suhaila, N. H. Nik Ahmad Irwan Izzauddin, and S. Khadijah, "Parasites prevalence in poultry: Focusing on free range Turkeys (Meleagris Gallopavo)," Malaysian Journal of Veterinary Research, vol. 8, pp. 1 – 9, 2017.

[38] Y. Amede, K. Tilahun, and M. Bekele, "Prevalence of ectoparasites in Haramaya University intensive poultry farm," Global Veterinaria, vol. 7, pp. 264-269, 2011.

[39] M. Ilyes, B. Ahmed, S. Kheira, D. Hanene, and M. Fouzi, "Prevalence and distribution of chewing lice (Phthiraptera) in free range chickens from the traditional rearing system in the Algerian North East, Area of El-Tarf," International Journal of Poultry Science, vol. 12, pp. 721-725, 2013. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2013.721.725.

[40] R. Odenu, B. Mohammed, M. Simon, and R. Agbede, "Ecto-parasites of domestic chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) in Gwagwalada Area Council, Abuja, Nigeria-West Africa," Alexandria Journal for Veterinary Sciences, vol. 51, pp. 140-146, 2016. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5455/ajvs.220654.

[41] A. Kebede, B. Abebe, and T. Zewdie, "Study on prevalence of Ectoparasites of poultry in and around Jimma town," European Journal of Biological Sciences, vol. 9, pp. 18-26, 2017.

[42] J. P. Fabiyi, M. O. Alayande, A. O. A. M. D. Lawal, and A. M. M. Usman, "Prevalence and seasonal fluctuations of ectoparasites infesting turkeys backyard, Meleagris Gallopavo, in Sokoto, Northwestern Nigeria," Journal of Livestock and Veterinary Medicine in Tropical Countries, vol. 70, pp. 21-24, 2017. Available at: https://doi.org/10.19182/remvt.31391.

[43] M. Ebrahimi, K. Samiei, D. Anousheh, and M. Jalali, "Identification of ectoparasites in indigenous poultry in Southern areas of West Azerbaijan, Iran: A study on the prevalence and importance of these parasites," Archives of Razi Institute, vol. 71, pp. 253-258, 2016.

[44] H. Ashenafi, "Survey on identification of major diseases of local chickens in three selected agroclimatic zone in Central Ethiopia," DVM Thesis, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Addis Ababa University, 2000.

[45] R. Wall and D. Shearer, Veterinary ectoparasites: Biology, pathology and control, 2nd ed. London, UK: Blackwell Science, 2001.

[46] R. D. Price, R. A. Hellenthal, R. L. Palma, K. P. Johnson, and D. H. Clayton, The chewing lice world checklist and biological overview. Champaign, IL, USA: Illinois Natural History Survey, Special Publication 24, 2003.

[47] T. Cencek, "Prevalence of Dermanyssus gallinae in poultry farms in Silesia region in Poland," Bulletin-Veterinary Institute in Pulawy, vol. 47, pp. 465-470, 2003.

[48] M. Yakhchali, S. Rasouli, and E. Alborzi, "Prevalence and body distribution of the poultry red mite in layer farms from Markazi province of Iran," Iranian Journal of Veterinary Research, vol. 14, pp. 72-74, 2013.

[49] S. Haider, A., K. Nisar, M., Z. Iqbal, and S. M. Sohail, "Tick infestation in poultry," International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, vol. 6, pp. 1162 – 1165, 2004.

[50] A. Biu, R. Agbede, and P. Peace, "Studies on ectoparasites of poultry in Maiduguri, Nigeria," Nigerian Journal of Parasitology, vol. 28, pp. 69-72, 2007. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4314/njpar.v28i2.37866.

[51] Y. Malann, B. Olatunji, and A. Usman, "Ectoparasitic infestation on poultry birds raised in Gwagwalada area council, FCT-Abuja," International Journal of Innovative Research and Development, vol. 5, pp. 74-77, 2016.

[52] D. Oche, O. Ogwiji, M. Torhemen, A. Andyar, L. Z. AkahaanRT, and W. Kwaghtse, "Survey of ecto-parasites in chickens in Benue State of Nigeria," Scholarly Journal of Agricultural Science, vol. 6, pp. 235-238, 2016.

[53] A. Mulugeta, M. Chanie, and B. Bogale, "Major constraints of village poultry production in Demba Gofa District of Southern Region, Ethiopia," British Journal of Poultry Sciences, vol. 2, pp. 01-06, 2013.

[54] D. L. Sabrina, "Prevalence study of ectoparasite and endoparasite in commercial free –range scavenging chickens," Unpublished B. App Sc. Thesis. Universiti Sains Malaysia, 2014.

[55] S. Mekuria and E. Gezahegn, "Prevalence of external parasite of poultry in intensive and backyard chicken farm at Wolayta Soddo town, Southern Ethiopia," Veterinary World, vol. 3, pp. 533 – 538, 2010.

[56] A. Permin, J. Esmann, C. Hoj, T. Hove, and S. Mukaratirwa, "Ecto-, endo-and haemoparasites in free-range chickens in the Goromonzi District in Zimbabwe," Preventive Veterinary Medicine, vol. 54, pp. 213-224, 2002. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-5877(02)00024-7.

[57] G. R. Njunga, "Ecto-and haemoparasites of chickens in Malawi with emphasis on the effects of the chicken louse Menacanthus cornutus," MSc Thesis, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Frederiksberg, Denmark, 2003.

[58] E. Mungube, S. Bauni, B.-A. Tenhagen, L. Wamae, S. Nzioka, L. Muhammed, and J. Nginyi, "Prevalence of parasites of the local scavenging chickens in a selected semi-arid zone of Eastern Kenya," Tropical Animal Health and Production, vol. 40, pp. 101-109, 2008. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-007-9068-3.

[59] K. Belihu, A. Mamo, F. Lobago, and D. Ayana, "Prevalence of ectoparasites in backyard local chickens in three agroecologic zones of East Shoa, Ethiopia," Veterinary Medicine Review, vol. 160, pp. 537-541, 2009.

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), International Journal of Veterinary Sciences Research shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content.

Index